OP, I don't in the least blame you for becoming emotional, and I don't think that it was wrong. Teachers are professional people, of course, but they work with children and parents, so they are working in the 'personal' sphere. They should be aware that professional decisions they make have huge impacts on people's personal lives and personal development. (My mother, for instance, was profoundly affected by her headmistress's decision to refuse to allow her to apply to university on the most spurious grounds possible.)

I'm absolutely horrified by how the teacher behaved, and I'm very glad indeed that your son has been transferred to someone who can actually help him.

I do think you were probably wrong to bring up the issue of her motives for taking the job, but in the circumstances, I think you can be excused. In your place I might very well have blurted it out too.

Logged

When you look into the photocopier, the photocopier also looks into you

I don't see what you could have done differently. My mom worked with SE kids for years. Over time the treatments/techniques changed. She went to seminars and classes on weekends and over the summers. Her kids were important to her and while she had to do some classes to keep her certification, her main drive was to keep up with how the world was treating her kids. She educated the teachers in her school. She wanted to be able to handle any situation whether it was with a parent or a child. She retired believing she made a difference in some kids lives. I know she did.

My SIL has ambitions similar to the teacher the OP encountered. However, she does not think she knows it all and has never put her ambitions over the needs of her kids. That's what this teacher did. It's ok to say that the one gap in your resume is purple and that you need hands on experience to understand purple disabilities. It is not ok to not learn about purple disabilities and try pink treatments. That is just filling a hole on your resume by saying you worked with a purple child. She really should have spent last year educating herself and not failing your son.

I concur with others...you tried directly talking to the teacher. That should be your first step. You talked to her boss. That is the second step. You talked to the principal, that is the third step. Still your son was not getting what he needed...as you said, what he needed was typical for his disability so it isn't like you had your own methodology that you were making up. And still he wasn't getting what he needed...so you went into Mama Bear mode and it happened. Me thinks the teacher is transferring her own guilt on to you.

How would you feel if that teacher brought up random gossip she may have heard about you at a conference, information that has nothing to do with your child's education? If the situation were reversed, I'm betting you would be completely indignant- and rightfully so. I don't really understand why teachers aren't also deserving of basic etiquette in their interactions with parents.

Except the info about the teacher did not have "nothing to do with the child's education". The information had EVERYTHING to do with the child's education. it revealed that the teacher was USING a disabled child to fluff up her resume. Which is despicable. A teacher who is actively harming a disabled child for her own benefit does not deserve to have her actions swept under the rug.

Logged

"From a procrastination standpoint, today has been wildly successful."

I admit I don't understand why it is so wrong to want to expand your resume when you're a teacher? Then again, I have been assuming this whole thread that the disability is Asperger's and the teacher is familiar with autism, which is probably leading to a bit of bias.

Logged

“Poetry is a sword of lightning, ever unsheathed, which consumes the scabbard that would contain it.” PBS

I admit I don't understand why it is so wrong to want to expand your resume when you're a teacher? Then again, I have been assuming this whole thread that the disability is Asperger's and the teacher is familiar with autism, which is probably leading to a bit of bias.

I have nothing against wanting to expand one's resume. The problem is that the teacher put no effort into learning about the new disability, and did more harm than good with her bumbling inaccuracy. If she had done her research into proper purple techniques and learned how to work with a child w/ purple, I'm sure this thread would never have been started.

Logged

"From a procrastination standpoint, today has been wildly successful."

A teacher who is actively harming a disabled child for her own benefit does not deserve to have her actions swept under the rug.

Reasonable minds can disagree that this is an accurate description of this situation. I think it is completely off base. No where did I get the sense the teacher is visciously wanting to harm disabled children, and frankly choosing special education to act out some sort of "I'm going to get to the top no matter who I step on!!!!" scenario just doesn't make sense. The teacher, to me, should have been better guided and backed by administration. Also, unless I am mistaken, any potential employers down the road would be more likely to be interested in "I have certification for Purple Disability" over "I worked for a year with one child diagnosed with Purple Disability." The whole, "This teacher is using the OP's child to get ahead!" just doesn't make rational sense - she isn't getting ahead!

If the Special Ed teacher was physically restraining my child in a manner that was not specifically laid out in the child's IEP, I wouldn't bother calling the school principal. I'd call the police.

I think the police would be total overkill. If the IEP isn't being followed, the next step is to bring in a lawyer to the next IEP meeting. That's what the next step should have been.

But for needlessly physically restraining a child? I don't think in and of itself that would be overkill. If a teacher physically restrained my child and continued to do so after I had addressed the issue with them, going to the police doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.

And it's one thing to expand your resume as a teacher, but not at the expense of the children in your care. Hey, if you're a teacher and want to eventually teach Spanish, that's awesome! But don't stand in front of a class babbling nonsense to the students while telling them it's Spanish!

The whole, "This teacher is using the OP's child to get ahead!" just doesn't make rational sense - she isn't getting ahead!

I agree. The teacher in question can be criticized and the OP can be justified without villianizing the teacher. The question in the OP was should an apology be offered. The consensus seems to be that an apology is unnecessary. That doesn't mean, however, that the teacher must be viewed as the Devil Wears Prada Education Edition for the OP to be justified.

A teacher who is actively harming a disabled child for her own benefit does not deserve to have her actions swept under the rug.

Reasonable minds can disagree that this is an accurate description of this situation. I think it is completely off base. No where did I get the sense the teacher is visciously wanting to harm disabled children, and frankly choosing special education to act out some sort of "I'm going to get to the top no matter who I step on!!!!" scenario just doesn't make sense. The teacher, to me, should have been better guided and backed by administration. Also, unless I am mistaken, any potential employers down the road would be more likely to be interested in "I have certification for Purple Disability" over "I worked for a year with one child diagnosed with Purple Disability." The whole, "This teacher is using the OP's child to get ahead!" just doesn't make rational sense - she isn't getting ahead!

The teacher chose to use panic-inducing physical restraint techniques rather than listen to the parent or do her own research about appropriate techniques. I consider that actively harming the child. The teacher did these things because she wanted to be able to claim to have worked with purple disability, without taking the time to do any research or training. I stand by my statement.

Logged

"From a procrastination standpoint, today has been wildly successful."

The teacher did these things because she wanted to be able to claim to have worked with purple disability, without taking the time to do any research or training.

This is the part that is over the top for me. I think the teacher should have handled the situation differently, and I think administration should have guided her better. I do not see from the information we have been given that she had any evil motive. That's where I think your point gets lost - in villianizing the teacher. I think your point would be valid (though I disagree) without going over the top. Once it becomes "what an evil vile teacher stepping on the heads of defenseless children to get the top of the highly compensated and much lauded position of Special Education Coordinator!" I think people start to question your position. At least I do.

And again, can someone in education chime in on this: My understanding was always that a Purple Certification would have more weight than a vague statement of "I worked with Johnny. He is diagnosed with Purple." It just seems to me that if the teacher had some sort of evil motive she wouldn't have worked with Johnny at all but simply gotten the certification.

I think I'd have to know a whole lot more abot what the vhild was doing and why the teavher thought physical restraint was a good idea. Say the child slams their head into the desk. Now physical restraint might make sense and with one disability it might work. With another you might be better off putting a pillow on the desk. However, I think I would go through a lawyer rather than going to the police with a complaint that the teacher was tryng to physically stop kid from slamming head into desk. Now I have no idea what led to physical restraint inOP's case, no idea whether there were other people around, etc.